Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVReporter Energy Management and Monitoring

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AVReporter Energy Management and Monitoring

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. Article written entirely by COI author, who removed the PROD template ~~without explanation~~. No indications of any independent coverage of this software anywhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I had not noted the author's talk page comments, so the PROD was not removed without explanation. Does not change the basic rationale for deletion though. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per nom. Reads like an brochure; no citations or coverage.--E8 (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not Delete~~ I am software engineer in industry, in my opinion this documentation is included technical details about AVReporter software. It is very important and useful for engineers how can select appropriate versions. Anyway AVReporter is industrial software that's why It is not well known by casual people, but in industry well-known. You can get more information about AVR in industrial software forums (OPC connections, PLC communications, etc.), for example: http://www.control.com/thread/1280824575#1280905358— Avreport (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The unsigned vote above was placed by the WP:SPA user, Avreport, who clearly has a WP:COI username.--E8 (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I would like it to be noted: the aim of the article was to give a description and has no promotional purposes. Please, do specify within the text where you can see promotional style.- Some of the independent media sources: http://www.hircity.hu/cgi-bin/hircity/index.cgi?view=ck&tID=610&nID=278729 http://www.hircity.hu/cgi-bin/hircity/index.cgi?view=ck&tID=610&nID=225124 --81.182.242.251 (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete Because It is a key technical documation for engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.175.185 (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — 91.82.175.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment This is basically an "I like it" argument. What criterion for inclusion does this article meet that would allow it to be kept? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It should be noted that both the anonymous user's IP's trace to the same city, Budapest (which is quite close to the KONsys's headquarters). It might be useful to have an admin with privileges check them against [1] and [2] to see if there is meat- or sock-puppetry at work (indicating strong WP:COI).--E8 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In my opinion fictitious accusations are not right. I am electrical engineer about twenty years experiance at multinational factories. I plan energy management sytems. I suggest focus to topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.175.185 (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete - Technical documentaion about energy management software. This solution is very ipmortant for environment protection. - software developer from London — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.236.214 (talk • contribs) — 90.202.236.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Not Delete-Den ovanstáende är en teknikal beskrivning. De som är av motsatt mening är inte kompetenta gällande temat och har inte tillräckligt kunskap. Det vore bra om man resonerade klokt med motivering (WikiDan61)-det är inte faktainformation. frán Göteborg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.194.51.149 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC) — 46.194.51.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of significant coverage by even one reliable source to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a repository of technical documentation on any subject; it is an encyclopedia. The article appears promotional and based largely on original research, both violating WP policy and guidelines. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 03:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete This documentation is same category as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergyCAP, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_PowerMeter , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chellow — Preceding unsigned comment added by KONsysInternational (talk • contribs) 08:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — KONsysInternational (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No reliable sources to help the article pass the GNG. Article seems highly promotional. Buggie111 (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete It is engineering documentation not included marketing sentences. Energy management is very young, important topic is now and future. /University teacher - Budapest/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.43.1 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — 195.70.43.1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, there are no reliable sources referenced to help substantiate the product's Wikipedia:Notability. Not even a list of clients or how it's being used - and let me make this point clear - I do not mean how it can be used, but how it is being used. PK T(alk) 13:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Including list of clients would make it promotional, which seems to be the main concern... we would appreciate specific suggestions on how to make the article better. As far as I am concerned Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. "Word History: The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is enkuklios paideia, made up of enkuklios, "cyclical, periodic, ordinary," and paideia, "education," and meaning "general education." Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense "general course of instruction," first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge. The first such use in English is recorded in 1644."- the description placed on Wikipedia contains only educational explanations for those, who are looking for it. There is nothing promotional in the text, if anybody feels different then should point out where exactly it is promotional. Wikipedia should be a source of information and the guardians should help making this wider and fuller.KONsysInternational (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all the WP:NSOFT inclusion criteria. --Drm310 (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.